Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
@struggler said:
Now I know that an owner is responsible for locks and locking mechanisms.
NO the Strata is responsible for the ORIGIONAL door locks, you are responsible for the keys. This even applies to the garage door and ALL it’s opening mechanisms (even electric door openers located well within the lot, strange I know).
I believe it is common property, but whether it’s an insurance job or Strata cost is debatable as insurance could claim it’s just fair wear and tear if it’s been on since 1974. Flat roofing membranes don’t last as long as tiles or metal roofing. Last time I had a flat roof the membrane only lasted 12 years before leaking and requiring replacement.
I found the following excert from:
Principles and provisions of Memorandum No AG600000
2.3 Ceilings and Roof. Common Property.
a. Ceiling cornices.
b. False ceilings installed at time of registration of the strata plan.
c. Guttering.
d. Membranes.
e. Plastered ceilings.
f. Vermiculite ceilings.2.4 Ceilings and Roof. Lot property.
a. False ceilings inside the lot added after registration of the strata plan.
b. Paintwork inside the lot.It is produced by NSW Gov but it seems it needs to be approved by your OC to be valid. Don’t fully understand the implication.
It depends on how much you want to get offside with these people. Damaging common property is against the bylaws and action can be taken against offenders.
Bylaws cannot be applied selectively if one person is allowed to use parking space for items other than a vehicle other have the same right. Start leaving bins, ladders, etc in your parking space and say you will remove yours when others remove items other than vehicles. Take photos to prove you point.
@webwrx said:
I’m now thinking they’re part of the unit –
You shouldn’t need to guess, they are part of your unit or they are common property (you have stated their is no relevant bylaw) and you should be able to tell from the plans of the unit. Until you know which you are stuck.
If common property it’s OC responsibility to maintain, if part of the lot it’s owners responsibility.
However previous posts have stated that the SM MAY use strata fund to maintain items within the lot and this sounds like a sensible use of that ability. BUT what sort of vote would be required to authorize use of these funds is a mystery to me.
Why spend money on a bylaw when common sense solves the problem.
I would say if it’s correctly registered it’s valid. Get the your Strata manager to obtain a new copy of the bylaws for the complex and make sure they say what your copy does. If not look at when this new copy was registered and see if it was before yours or after.
Could be a new copy was registered some time after 1996 when you obtained yours.
BUT
Generally when strata complexes are built the council specifies the developer must include a number of visitor car parks and this is a council requirement and the Strata cannot vote them out of existence (even by creating a new bylaw as bylaws have to comply with ALL gov laws). Also when bylaws are registered they are NOT checked for validity they are just registered and they assume you knew what you were doing.
Can you obtain a copy of the original bylaws for when the complex was built (original owner still living their??) and see if their are any Visitor Parking bays specified. If their are and you have reallocated them you could have problems.
Got to agree with Jimmy. Councils (QLD does and I suspect NSW would as well) when they authorize Strata developments they specify how many visitor parking bays are required for the said development. Ruling in QLD have thrown out requests to use visitor parking for anything other than parking for visitors. Even a 100% vote by owners doesn’t change the fact that bylaws cannot conflict with council laws, state laws or commonwealth laws and if they do bylaws loose.
You need to research if same requirement for visitor parking is applicable in NSW if it is EC don’t have a leg to stand on. Being on the EC entitles the person to no special privileges.
@M S said:(b) If there is a flood and damage occurs, what would the OC obligations be to individual owners?
If any damage occurs that is not covered by the insurance the Owners Corp will have to foot the bill for all the repairs to common property. You will need contents insurance to cover your personnel items in the property.
If there is not enough money in the OC funds then a special levy would be raised from ALL owners (even if damage is limited to only 1 unit) to pay for the repairs. OC could not vote to refuse to repair the common property as they are legally obliged to repair common property.
I’m not sure of the situation regarding fixtures and fitting within the property (fitted kitchens, internal doors, bathrooms, etc) as these are not considered common property but would have been covered under the building insurance policy. I suspect the OC would be liable as it’s due to their negligence that insurance was not provided that would have covered these thing.
Reading the act your motion would still have failed due to lack of a Quorum
12 Quorum
A motion submitted at a general meeting of an owners
corporation must not be considered, and an election must not be
held, unless there is a quorum present to consider and vote on
the motion or on the election.
There is a quorum for considering and voting on such a motion
or at such an election only if
(a) at least one-quarter of the number of persons entitled to vote on the motion or at the election is present, either personally or by duly appointed proxy, or
(b) at least one-quarter of the aggregate unit entitlement of the strata scheme is represented by the persons who are present and entitled to vote on the motion or at the election, either personally or by duly appointed proxy.So with 9 owners you require 2.11 owners for quorum. I suspect you would require 3 to obtain the quorum. But as you require 75% to pass you would have required all 3 owners to vote in your favor.
Seems you can vote without a meeting
21 General meetings valid if attended only by chairperson
A general meeting of an owners corporation is, subject to the provisions of this Schedule relating to the quorum of the owners corporation, validly held even though the only person present at the meeting is the chairperson of the owners corporation.Seems to me you organize a GM on a particular day and date but tell people not to attend but vote by proxy (postal vote) ensuring proxies are received by chairman on this date. Chairman then counts the proxies and declares the result. I’m sure Jimmy will tell me if I’ve got it wrong.
@JimmyT said:
This posting (below, from kiwipaul) is wrong in two very significant ways. In NSW you do not require a vote of ALL owners except for a very, very few decisions – such as dissolving a strata plan or repaying overpaid levies – and this isn’t one of them.A vote by all owners is very common (every AGM). I never said it requires a unanimous vote, just a vote put to ALL owners that the treasurer be allowed to invest the money however he sees fit and a simple majority of votes cast would be adequate IMHO.
OP doesn’t say how long this has been going on for but if it’s for more than 1 year fully and frank disclosure should have been made at last AGM and if not they are surely in breach of the act.
I think I’d sooner loose my vote than any more money. Unless I received satisfactory ans to various question I would ask for an immediate audit from an independent auditor (NOT one recommended by this Strata Manager) and if this was refused lodge an action at CTTT.
I’m incredulous that in NSW strata funds can be used by the Strata Manager with no requirement for him to explain his action to owners. For all you know this investment could be a punt on the gee gee’s.
@Urban Spaceman said:
This seems wrong, am I right?In my opinion you are totally correct. OC may have a right to invest in any prescribed investment BUT not without informing ALL owners about what they are doing and be given approval by a vote of ALL owners.
You seem to be using a BC manager and generally they handle the BC funds and invest it in safe investments (term dep). Over the last 5 years the best term dep have outperformed the average investment.
Does this treasurer even have a license to manage your funds (don’t know if required or not).
DEMAND to see a breakdown of the investments their net worth, their original value and total funds used for this purpose on an official document (not something he’s thrown together which might or might not be true).
If this guys wants to gamble on the stock market he should use his own money NOT yours. If this guy makes bad investments YOU will be picking up the bill (if he is using CFD or margin calls you can rapidly incur huge losses (or profits) which the BC MAY be liable for depending on the agreement he has with the BC).
I’d personally stop all payments to the BC until I’d received a satisfactory explanation to prevent me loosing even more money.
It’s the BC’s job to maintain the common property and you can submit a motion to the Secretary asking for this repair to be done with a copy of quote (some require 2 quotes). Just needs to be voted on by EC or all owners and a simple majourity will authorize it.
Just need to be certain it is BC reasponsibllity.
1) Boundary fence between your complex and another property cost is split 50/50 between BC and other property owner.
2) Boundary fence between your unit and common property is split 50/50 between yourself and BC.
3) Boundary fence between 2 units within block is split 50/50 between the 2 unit owners.
This is the standard position but their could be something in your bylaws / plans that overide this. You need to check.
If he refuses or vote fails suggest to him you will take action at CTTT as if it is common property they are liable for it’s maintenance.
@JimmyT said:
However, this owner would indeed be morally entitled to demand that the EC fix visitors parking first before they came after her. Two wrongs don’t make a right but she would have a pretty compelling argument to take to mediation if she was issued with a Notice To Comply.Morality don’t come into it just the law. Your argument that because EC doesn’t enforce one bylaw they cannot enforce any bylaw is seriously flawed. If that was the case any complainant would only have to show at CTTT that EC failed to enforce bylaw x so they are unable to now enforce bylaw y.
I agree if they fail to enforce bylaw x against Fred they cannot then enforce the same bylaw x against Joe, because they have to be consistent.
OP clearly stated that their was NO restriction in the bylaws for this situation in this complex and the act only states you have to inform BC of the lessees details it doesn’t give the BC powers to refuse permission so I cannot see it being a CTTT issue.
Maybe local council have a restriction on subletting residential car spaces but to know that you would have to know which council we are talking about and OP doesn’t indicate this. If this was the case surely the council would have to take action against the OP not the OC and the chance of the council taking action in respect of 1 parking space is I believe negligible (even if they knew about it).
Just my opinion.
@IBC said:
the Owners Corporation (OC) must maintain the common property as well as lot property invested in the care of the OC, such as exclusive use areas which may consist of balconies, courtyards, parking spaces etc.What does invested in the care of the OC actually mean and can you give us some examples.
The act also states
61 (6)
Recovery of costs as a debt
The costs incurred by an owners corporation in carrying out any work referred to in this section may be recovered by the owners corporation as a debt.They are talking about private property of the lot.
I personally would be VERY upset with a BC manager (or EC) who decides to spend BC funds maintaining the private lot of any owner without a very good reason (without billing owner for said work).
The act states that the BC manager and the EC have to act on behalf of all owners and giving preferential treatment to certain owners is misuse of funds and at worst corruption.
A good reason in my book would be a disable person unable to do the gardening themselves.
Strata Manager shouldn’t be making these decisions. He works for the owners and they have the final say. SM can advise owners of the law regarding issues (assuming he knows which it appears he doesn’t).
I’m assuming cost is above the OC limit so all owners have to vote on issue. If cost is within OC limit OC can decide the issue.
Surely their is some mechanism to vote on issues outside of the AGM (in QLD we hold Flying motions that are postal vote or email votes by committee or all owners).
Agree with other posters this is BC cost NOT yours.
************************
Posting removed at poster’s request.
************************